Liberty University, Glenn Beck and the Gospel

Tom,

Thanks for dropping by. I have my own issues with Driscoll though I believe he is a Christian brother. Beck, a Mormon, on the other hand I do not regard him as a Christian brother.

Now maybe it's just me, but it seems that much less attention was given to Beck's speech than Driscoll's appearance. Soon after Beck's commencement speech Falwell, Jr. was praising it as one of the best Liberty has had.

Color me confused.

And Now the Mark Driscoll Controversy at Liberty University

The Bible tells us that sex between husband and wife and within the bonds of marriage is a beautiful and wonderful gift from God. That said, Christians today are living and walking in a minefield of sexual enticements in a sex obsessed culture. Modesty and purity are being attacked from every side.

With the invite of “Christianized sex obsessed”, Mark Driscoll to Liberty University it seems that this once strong bastion of conservative Biblical thought is now simply attempting to keep up with and even surpass the worldliness of the world.

Even though Mark Driscoll may make a few valid points, his focus is far from the focus of Jesus. What about the millions who will be suffering for eternity for lack of hearing and responding to the Good News. In saner times that Good News was the focus of the education provided by Liberty University.

With Mormon Glenn Beck’s commencement teaching on “faith” and Mark Driscoll’s sex obsessed rantings, parents might want to re-consider sending their vulnerable children to the “safe” environment of “Christian” Liberty University. At least in a secular university you know what you are up against. At Liberty University, if your guard is down, wolves may be finding it easy pickings to take their prey.

Tom Garito

Father of a Liberty Graduate

Hi Ben,

I have a question about your comment that we should be leading people to Christ. Would that be the Christ of Joseph Smith or the actual Christ written about in the New Testament?

I know this is post is a couple of years old, but I have to express my disappointment. We should be looking for the good and leading people to Christ though our example not trying to shun people. How can we change them if we do not interact with them or make them feel welcome. As C. S. Lewis once said "All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing; . . . the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute.”

Somehow I missed this when it happened. Not the event, for I am a graduate student at LU, but I missed your post. This has made me angry all over again. I more or less have to finish my MA in Theology from Liberty because I'm so far into it, but I promise you I won't be walking across the stage to receive my diploma if they do a stunt like this in 2011.

As one who atended Liberty for 4 years and who walked at the graduation ceremony where Glenn Beck spoke, I was honored to have him speak, and I support the decision to have him deliver the commencement address. All of you on here who are slandering LU are in the wrong for doing so. You have a reason to criticize Liberty over the Ergun Caner scandal; I'll join you in that discussion. But slandering Liberty for asking Glenn Beck to speak at commencement is unwarranted, and some of those sorts of comments on here are a little bit offensive. Just trying to be honest and offer some input from the other side.

Wexler,
I just saw your question about what I said about morality. Now I can't say that the following entirely applies to what LU did having Beck, but I would say it's something that does go on. Often as believers (I understand you're not, and frankly some of these are "family" (i.e. Christ's church) issues, so we Christians should be discerning in what we openly discuss, advice which I sometimes fail to follow), we become very passionate about political and moral issues affecting the nation, and I'm not faulting that. However, it is easy in so doing to lose the primary focus which believers should have, trusting in God's providence, looking toward eternity, relating with Christ, and resting in His sovereignty, truth and grace. So sometimes I think we may find a prominent advocate for morality and sponsor him, even though his views about Christ are way off the mark from historic Christianity. I think that is a mistake, because theological doctrine must be the foundation for all else, and is more important than our stance on particular issues.
On the marriage thing, I'll just say that I don't believe we have inherent rights, but rather that, since we were made by a Creator, any rights we have came from Him as well. Thus the rights would always be in accord with His decrees.

I had a very busy day today and it looks like y'all did, too.

I am very tired at the moment but I just read through all the posts in my inbox and something jumped out at me.

Somebody posted that it was a man's right to have a gun and defend his family, in defense of gun rights. Someone said that the Bill of Rights were to prevent the state from infringing on those specific rights.

Why, then, did somebody argue previously that the right to choose your spouse is not a human right? Or, on the other hand, if the state makes a law protecting it, it becomes a protected right doesn't it? Isn't that the exact same thing as what has happened with LGBT marriage laws? The state has ruled that it does not have the authority to take this right away from people who want to practice it.

Good evening to all.

Wexler

"Okay, before I move on to other points, let me get this one thing straight: If I had a son, you think it would be my right to kill him?"

according to my worldview, taking the life of another is wrong for us to do. God is the judge and in our rebelling against Him, we are worthy of death.

Why would murder be wrong according to your worldview?

\\\\\\\"You’re spouting scripture at me, something I and a whole lot of others see as fiction. I don’t respond to that. How would you feel if I started inserting a chapter of Harry Potter in with every post?\\\\\\\"

uh, how in the world do you expect to critique something you have no idea about.

\\\\\\\"If I ever had a son, that would be my creation, right? Does that give me the right to rip out his rib?\\\\\\\"
If it were your creation, sure. God has plenty right to rip out your rib as He created you.

\\\\\\\"And you see, God is still the guilty and unjust party (theoretically) because he hasn’t given the people that he’s condemning enough opportunity to believe in him. Why does he allow so much evidence to pile up against him? He, as an omnipotent being, has the ability to destroy all of these “lies”.\\\\\\\"

You just don\\\\\\\'t read my arguments do you? Either that or you don\\\\\\\'t follow them. Man *does* know God per Romans 1:18-20. He has revealed Himself to man per creation, The Scriptures, and ultimately His Son. To simply say "the evidence is against Him\\\\\\\" is simply affirming that you are either 1) Self deceived or 2) Lying.

You have yet to answer my objections to your assumptions, yet I answer your questions and you call it \\\\\\\"Harry Potter Fiction\\\\\\\" I am answering in terms of \\\\\\\"My Worldview\\\\\\\". Which is the only worldview that predication and experimentation can be made. Any predication you do presupposes the Triune God. So of course you know Him. You need Him to exist to deny Him.

\"You’re spouting scripture at me, something I and a whole lot of others see as fiction. I don’t respond to that. How would you feel if I started inserting a chapter of Harry Potter in with every post?\"

uh, how in the world do you expect to critique something you have no idea about.

\"If I ever had a son, that would be my creation, right? Does that give me the right to rip out his rib?\"
If it were your creation, sure. God has plenty right to rip out your rib as He created you.

\"And you see, God is still the guilty and unjust party (theoretically) because he hasn’t given the people that he’s condemning enough opportunity to believe in him. Why does he allow so much evidence to pile up against him? He, as an omnipotent being, has the ability to destroy all of these “lies”.\"

You just don\'t read my arguments do you? Either that or you don\'t follow them. Man *does* know God per Romans 1:18-20. He has revealed Himself to man per creation, The Scriptures, and ultimately His Son. To simply say \"the evidence is against Him\" is simply affirming that you are either 1) Self deceived or 2) Lying.

You have yet to answer my objections to your assumptions, yet I answer your questions and you call it \"Harry Potter Fiction\" I am answering in terms of \"My Worldview\". Which is the only worldview that predication and experimentation can be made. Any predication you do presupposes the Triune God. So of course you know Him. You need Him to exist to deny Him.

"God- wouldn’t an omnipotent god not have non-evil ways of doing the stuff he wanted to do? I’ve always said, if there is an omnipotent, omniscient god, we don’t need to be loving him,we need to be hating him"

You need to recognize the Creator-creature distinction, you are trying to judge the Righteous, Just, Perfect, Triune God.

"Here’s a biblical example: The Bible says that god took the rib of Adam, and whittled it into Eve. Now, couldn’t an omnipotent god just have snapped his fingers and made a woman, rather than ripping out the guy’s rib? That sounds pretty messed up to me."

Why is it messed up that God personally deals with His creation?

"God allows (speaking theoretically here) so many people to be so unhappy. He lets people be miserable enough to kill themselves, and then supposedly sends them into infinite, eternal suffering once they do. Is that the mark of a god worth loving and respecting? "

Well first of all, as I've said before, the sinful man shouldn't even be judging the the Judge of the Universe, it would be like a perp who just committed murder who is telling the judge who gives him the death sentence "This is unjust!". But to answer your emotional objections, we've caused our own misery when we departed from our Sovereign in the garden. Man traded God's truth, for the opposer's (satan's) lie. And sinned against Him. A Righteous Judge (who must keep the righteous order in the universe) simply cannot let sin go unpunished. So what you see is man getting what he asked for. Being that He hasn't obliterated the human race, but sent His Son to ransom the church from judgment, then He is full of mercy, patience, kindness and Grace. He is worthy of worship whether you think so or not.

and you still have yet to answer my questions.

I guess I am on the email list, so there is no stopping. Besides, my wife stepped out, and I have a couple of minutes before I get in trouble. :-)

"Since when is the right to bear arms God-given? As far as I’m aware, the idea of God has been around a little bit longer than the idea of firearms."

I am really not certain what is so difficult about this. First the right to own property and the right to defend yourself and family and property is fundamental to liberty, which is why they sought to secure these right, not give them (that is the language of the Framers BTW). The Framers knew this all too well. Of course firearms are a modern invention. So what?

"Were it God-given, wouldn’t he just step in and smite the people that take it away?"

This presupposition seems to be a stumbling block for you. I am not a typical evanjellycal and neither is Mark. We are of the Reformed faith (think the Protestant Reformation and or Calvinism). We believe God has ordained evil for His purposes. So all evil events have a purpose by God including the Cross and aare purposely decreed to happen by God. Our theology answers your question on the problem of evil. You'll probably still disagree with it, but I have found some atheists willing to accept that even though they disagree, they find it more consistent.

I did want to point out an agreement. We both agree with using the term secular for the role of government. Where we disagree is that you take it to a level of meaning the Framers never intended. Secular is not to be equivocated with secularism. That is one of your errors.

For example, I get up and go to work with my fellow non-Christian employees. I find myself using the law of God to govern my way of life while living in my secular vocation. I have even had input into things we do that come from my religious views. Yet I am able to distinguish between the Law of God that is for all men in our secular lives as opposed to commands that are strictly for church and believers.

So in conclusion, I am not against a disciple of Zeus standing in the public square saying that murder is wrong according to Zeus and that we should not do it. For he ought to be able to show how Zeus' law is for all men, and not just followers of Zeus. This is where the Framers use of Natural Law or as commonly termed, the Laws of Nature and Nature's God is quite profitable.

This is something that Islam can not do by definition. There is no separation of church and state within Islam because there is no seccular as opposed to holy in Islam. They are a cult run by dictators.

In some sense you find this among Roman Catholic countries as well.

Finally, I must confess that I have no idea how atheists and non-atheists of any brand may get along even in a secular society. Fundamentally, we are going to butt heads at some point. Even though we disagree with some laws, we do agree that murder is wrong. Yet the basis for that is so radically different, it causes discussions like this.

God Bless

Wow! I just checked my inbox and there were 38 emails for posts here. There is no way I'll be able to read and respond so I thought I woud just respond to this quick one I saw.

"Ever heard of the Bill of Rights? That’s what’s known as the state granting us rights. I also don’t care what you think is a dangerous idea. I think religion is a dangerous idea, but I don’t reject it because it still exists."

Again, I am not certain what political class one sits in to learn this, but this just is not true. The Bill of Rights is to restrict government from infringing on our God-given rights. These rights did not come from the government. They came from God. And the authors of the Bill of Rights did not want a Federal or any government to take away our fundamental rights. Have you read Clarence Thomas' recent defense of the 2nd Amendment. This is precisely his argument.

There is too much here and I think we have abandoned the original argument. I am being told repeatedly that I am not answering questions, when I have. Yet when I point out the obvious double standard, that seems to be missed.

I will bow out since I easily get lost in such discussions on a Blog.

Thanks JM for the opportunity, and Mr. Wexler, it was indeed a pleasure to speak with you. If you ever wish to email me, I think I might be able to handle that.

God Bless

Howard

"Well, that’s just ignorance. The entire point of the scientific method is to use fact and supportable theory to make assertions. Facts being used to prove or support facts, that’s the very core of science."

The Scientific method does not account for the "fact" of the uniformity of nature, in fact, science doesn't give justification to the assertion that we come to the truth via science. The anti-theistic scientist must first assume these things, even though they do not accord with his/her worldview. For all experimentation and predication is grounded in the providence of the Triune God as revealed in the Scriptures.

So unless you can give me a reason why your assumptions are not arbitrary then please stop the "Scientific hand waving" you are doing on the board. We've all seen it before and it isn't anything but a smoke screen to cover the cracks in your epistemology

"Right. Atheists believe in talking snakes and people being swallowed by whales (and surviving)."

Atheists also believe in the Uniformity of nature to do science? Why? The Scriptures account for it, do Atheists? nope.

My apologies to Quinlan. I found two comments in the pending folder. I was checking the spam folder. I so rarely get real comments that are captured I overlooked it. Just note that it was not my doing, but the automated filters. There was probably a word it did not like.

Hi, Darrin,

The human right to choose your spouse is one of those truths we hold to be self-evident. It comes from where all human rights come from; a covenant that we keep with each other as citizens of this nation.

Well, I don't think we're going to agree about abortion so let's not go there. Sorry I brought it up.

Thanks for your comment about Glenn speaking at Liberty. Can you amplify a bit on the "morality" part of what trumped theology and truth?

Best regards, and

Peace,
Wexler

"It is a human right to choose your spouse."
Really? From whence did that right spring?
"It’s their body."
No, it isn't. That's the point. They're not destroying their own body, but the other distinct person's inside them.
"If you have any comments about Beck, I would love to hear those." Well, I'm not Mark, but for what it's worth, I think it was unwise to have him speak. I would guess that popularity and morality trumped theology and truth in this case. Sadly it doesn't much alarm me though, given the university's and much of the SBC's sloppy doctrine.
Thanks for your time.

Yes, Mark, but I'm not arguing for atheism.

I am trying to find out what you, as a Christian, think of Beck, a Mormon, not only setting foot on your campus, but stepping up to the podium on Commencement Day.

I agree with Quinlan's comments about homophobic beliefs. 100%. I think it's disgusting that we live in a nation that is supposed to be secular yet we have religious organizations hiding behind tax exempt status while working to deny equal rights to every citizen. It is a human right to choose your spouse. That is an undeniable fact, it is your right independent of what anyone else believes about it. It is also a woman's right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to full term. This has been upheld in the courts and although I do not personally like the idea of abortion, it is the law of the land and I definitely see the woman's point of view on this. It's their body. The pregnancy is something they have to deal with, not the church.

I have now wandered into an area which I do not want to go. If you have any comments about Beck, I would love to hear those.

Peace,
Wexler

I have been reading the posts above as I am subscribed to this thread. A few comments....

First, it is clear that the debate is going nowhere because you are in disagreement about general terms like "scientific", bias, "know", and many others that are common English words.

Second, I am struck by the pejorative and accusatory tone coming primarily from the Christian side of this discussion. It seems to me that you ought to be able to discuss this idea in a civil manner. Quinlan has been civil, in my opinion, but even if he wasn't, shouldn't you be? One of the primary messages of Christianity is love. It would be great if everybody practiced it.

Third, you Christians seem to be arguing from the position that you have a corner on moral values. That's a bit presumptive, don't you think? Considering that there are 32,000 different Christian denominations with moral interpretations all over the map, how can you argue that you somehow are just right about moral issues because you KNOW you are right because you KNOW the UNKNOWABLE?

Fourth, Quinlan believes that his comments are now being moderated. If that's so, why? For expressing ideas that you find uncomfortable? That's not a very good commentary about the strength of your convictions.

I said from the outset that I wasn't here to try to change anyone's religious beliefs. Quinlan and I are both atheists, and he is willing to defend and debate his point of view on this subject. As I may have stated previously, we don't agree on everything. My interest in religion only goes as far as it affects politics and public policy. I see that this thread has skirted around that issue now and then but I would be more prone to join in if you were talking about one issue in depth.

I find it very weird to be an atheist chiding Christians about civility on their own board. I'm sorry if this offends anyone but I am telling you the truth as I understand it.

Peace,

Wexler

To the webmaster:

If you have a problem with the way I'm posting on your board, let me know: qu1n1an@glennbeckreport.com .

I don't want to go against your terms of service or anything, that wasn't my intention. I think it's important for any opinion forum to have multiple points of view.

"You can’t use scripture to prove your science."

Says who? You? Oh that's your opinion and it's equally as valid as mine. So I don't care. By the way, you cannot use science to prove your science either because that is viciously circular.

"It’s fiction being used to support fact, it doesn’t work like that."

Atheism is fiction. See, I can do it too!

"Give me some real, scientific, observable evidence, that supports the idea of God."

I thought we had already gone over this? How about some real, scientific, observable evidence that supports the idea that we need some real, scientific, observable evidence for any belief?

"why would an all-powerful, loving god allow an innocent baby to die of disease?"

Because his lovingness is not the same as your's (thank God). Let me turn it around and ask you why He would not?

Oh by the way I thought you wanted to go somewhere unbiased? Blasphemy isn't allowed here either you know.

" My standard is scientific and observable fact.Your God has next to no scientific evidence supporting him, and that’s why he’s rejected by almost every single member of the scientific community. Almost all (if not all) scientific fact and evidence points to the nonexistence of a god."

First of all science deals with that which is natural, so to deny the existence of something which is super natural begs the question.

Second of all the Scientific method simply assumed the uniformity of nature for predication and experimentation, yet cannot give an account to why nature is uniform. This is arbitrary. The Scriptures tell us that God has created the universe to be uniform, and He, by His providence, has decreed by his Perfect Counsel, everything that will come to pass ((Is. 14:26-27; Eph. 1:11). Ultimately Scientific predication must presuppose ( subconsciously so) the Triune God of the Scripture.

Third of all Scientific predication assumes that something can be known about nature, why? This belief is also arbitrary, it cannot give account to why something can be known, it must first assume something can be known to prove something can be known. Scripture tells us that God created us in His image , (Gen 1)for His glory, and for us to give Him due praise. According to Romans 1:19-20

"what can be known about God is plain to them (unbelievers), because God has shown it to them"
"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

In your rebellion to your Creator you come up with these inconsistencies. The fact of the matter is that no matter how hard you try to reason autonomously from God, you will fail. This is God's universe and He has revealed the way He deals with it and us here in the Scriptures and Ultimately in Christ. He also reveals our sinful nature and how it affects our reasoning. Sin needs to be atoned for, and has been Through Christ Jesus. Your "scientific method" doesn't tell you that.

Looking forward to seeing you in #ChoosingHats, Quinlan.

taco provided you with the link.

"1. Right in terms of my standard. In that sentence I was speaking strictly opinion, not law. I was simply sharing my personal opinion, which holds no more weight than yours."

Let's call your "standard" what it is - subjective opinion. There is no standard on your view. You even admit this when you state that your personal opinion holds no more weight than another. However in stating this principle you assume the very opposite of what the statement affirms - a contradiction.

"2. My standard is scientific and observable fact."

Since this contradicts what you just stated in 1, since statement 2 is not scientific or observable, and since there is no scientific and observable fact which supports 2 I do not really have much reason to take you seriously here either. You are quite inconsistent.

"3. Your God has next to no scientific evidence supporting him,"

Aside from the fact that this is a false and unsupported (note - mere) assertion it may be necessary to let you know that scientific evidence - whatever that is - is not the only means of knowledge.

"...and that’s why he’s rejected by almost every single member of the scientific community."

Argumentum ad populum.

"Almost all (if not all) scientific fact and evidence points to the nonexistence of a god."

There are so many problems with this (note - mere) assertion that I would grow weary responding.

I can see why you refuse to engage people in real time.

1. Right in terms of my standard. In that sentence I was speaking strictly opinion, not law. I was simply sharing my personal opinion, which holds no more weight than yours.

2. My standard is scientific and observable fact.

3. Your God has next to no scientific evidence supporting him, and that's why he's rejected by almost every single member of the scientific community. Almost all (if not all) scientific fact and evidence points to the nonexistence of a god.

"1. It’s not that I contradicted myself. They decide what is fair – even though, in my opinion, they’re not always right."

Right according to whose standard?

"2. I’ve also got a host of reasons as to why the majority of scripture is BS. Would you like to hear them?"

Well you would need an objective standard to measure what is and isn't BS to weigh that by. If you don't, then its subjective. If its subjective, then it has no actual binding on reality, meaning we don't have to care.

"3. Well, maybe God does govern human law. Or maybe Thor does, or maybe Krishna does, or maybe Anubis does. Or maybe none of them does. We can’t prove any way, but the evidence points to the latter."

By which standard of evidence? The Triune God's revelation, or yours?